Revolutions don't happen under conditions of total oppression. To stand up against authoritarian rule, people need some fresh air – at least a few inches of freedom to think and organise. In Poland 25 years ago one free newspaper and a few trade unions started an avalanche. But there was one more trigger: common and deeply disturbing experience of mass surveillance.

The rule was simple: if you were not with us, you were against us.

Everybody was under some form of surveillance. Secret police installed spies on every corner and in every house: neighbours spied on neighbours; workmates spied on one another. It didn't matter if mistakes were made. Mass surveillance under communist regimes was not about intelligence – it was about breaking people and making them obedient.

Today Poland is celebrating 25 years of a "free and democratic" state. We would like to believe that it's no longer a young democracy, that our legal and political institutions have gained the sort of maturity that is expected from adults: reasoned policies based on evidence, a sense of responsibility for those who depend on the state for legal protection, full recognition of human rights. And we have all that – on paper.

In the aftermath of recent disclosures – that Poland cooperated with US intelligence and delivered up vast amounts of telecommunications data (possibly on its own citizens) – the 25th anniversary of our "freedom" feels bittersweet. How is it possible that Polish citizens haven't heard a word of explanation from their elected representatives with regard to Snowden's allegations? We still don't know the answers to basic questions: what was the purpose of Polish-US cooperation; who were the targets?

It is true that democracy and the rule of law cannot be achieved all at once. But there are things that cannot be accepted in a democratic regime; red lines that, once crossed, undermine the very essence of what "rule of the people, for the people" should be about. How many of these red lines have been crossed by the Polish government in their cooperation with US intelligence?

Snowden's leaks left us in little doubt that the secret cooperation of intelligence services is not about fighting terrorism. The mass surveillance of innocent citizens turned out to be a rule, not an exception. It also became evident that European governments – including Poland – cooperated in this effort. Targeting innocent citizens and collecting data "just in case" recalls the times when the secret police wanted to break people more than it wanted information. And yet our elected representatives pretend that public security remains a plausible explanation.

The power balance between citizens and their elected representatives has been disturbed to the extent that both political and legal accountability simply don't work. Polish law does not provide any mechanisms that might force the intelligence community and government to subject their decisions to any form of civic control. The only argument that we hear is "for the sake of your security, we cannot give you any details".

This is not the answer. Democracy does not exist without accountability.

Therefore Poland should move towards deep, systemic reform of its intelligence agencies. In particular, an external oversight mechanism should be created and access to telecommunication data limited (at the moment all nine intelligence agencies can use such data without any authorisation, for any purpose that fits their statutory duties). It is also high time to demand from the United States not just a serious response to Snowden's allegations but an end to all mass surveillance programmes.

Finally, checks and balances cannot work without transparency. Therefore the main obstacle we face in demanding greater accountability is secrecy. Most Polish decision-makers argue that activities related to national security should be kept secret by default. This reasoning makes any form of supervision over the intelligence community extremely difficult. Governments have seized power to which they are not legally entitled. How much more power are we prepared to give away before we conclude that our much-cherished democracy is merely a facade?